Quote Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
To what extent were the Taleban 'unconventional' fighters?

They were the militia of the government of Afghanistan. The Geneva Conventions recognize militias as falling under the jurisdiction of the conventions. Even Redleg has acknowledged this, and that the laws DO apply to them.

Moreover, the Geneva Conventions stipulate that IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT about their status, fair and impartial tribunals are to be held to determine their status. Even the inmates at Guantanamo were given something resembling these (although even the US Bar association and the US military's own lawyers complained that they were not at all fair). Are you alleging that the secret prisons we've just been learning about have been holding fair and impartial hearings on their prisoners status?

What the CIA is doing is not the same thing that was done by the Military in regards to the Taliban, the Militia's and the illegal combatants in Afganstan. Hurin is correct by the Hague Conventions of 1907 and Geneva Conventions the Taliban Militia and any Afganstan citizen who particapated in battle should be given treatment in accordance with the conventions - until such a time as a tribunal is held.

Those from outside Afganstan - and also Iraq - who decide to go and fight - can be held as unlawful combatants - as long as a tribunal has been held. Everything I have read shows that for the most part those that are being held in Gitmo have been given at least one Tribunal that determined they fell within the unlawful combatant status.

Now what the CIA is doing is something different. is it unlawful - it all depends on exactly what they are doing. Safe houses are standard practice. More information is really needed determine if the Geneva Convention regarding Prisoner's of War is being violated by the CIA, and more information is needed to determine if laws are being broken in a systemic way.